198 A. 687 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1938
Argued March 7, 1938.
On appeal from a summary proceeding brought under the Act of Assembly approved April 14, 1905, P.L. 169 (
The evidence discloses that the agent for the B.E. Whitmoyer Estate, under written agreement, dated April 1, 1935, leased a farm in Columbia County, for the term of one year, to the appellant, who took immediate possession thereof and, with the consent of the landlord, continued on the premises for another year, moving therefrom on April 1, 1937.
The tillable portion of this farm was about 115 acres and the appellee contends that good husbandry required that 20 to 25 acres be used for each of the crops of corn, wheat, oats, and hay. The appellant, after cutting his oats in the year 1936, seeded winter wheat not only in the 24 acres where the oats had been harvested, but also in other fields, amounting in all to 80 to 82 acres. The appellee alleges there was left an insufficient acreage for the incoming tenant to plant the other main crops.
In July, 1937, the landlord's agent placed the trespass signs on the property. He informed the appellant he had no objection to his going on the farm to harvest *499 the 10 and 14 acre fields, which had been planted in oats the previous year, but notified him not to cut the additional wheat he had sown. After harvesting the 24 acres, the appellant cut the wheat on a part of the remaining acreage; his arrest followed.
The lease is silent as to the number of acres the appellant was to sow in wheat. Nevertheless, it was his duty to cultivate the land according to the requirements of good husbandry: Lewis v.Jones,
The appellant's entering upon the owner's land after the expiration of the lease and his surrender of possession of the premises, for the purpose of obtaining property to which he had some grounds to assert title, did not constitute a criminal offense and subject him to an arrest, even if his action was against the landlord's will. He retained for a particular purpose a certain interest in that part of the land where his crop was growing, with the right of entry to recover the profits of his labor. Judge PORTER pointed out in Com. v. Burford,
The facts in Com. v. Shapiro,
The unanimous opinion of this court is that the conviction was wrong, as the facts in this case do not warrant the finding that the defendant was guilty of a wilful trespass, within the purview of the 1905 statute.
Judgment of the learned court below is reversed. *501